2024 INSC 1034

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5580 of 2024)

JAGGO ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.11086 of 2024)
ANITA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

Signature Not Verified

2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2024.12.20
08.08.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at
18:55:02 IST
Reason:

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 1 of 29

 New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 6822 of 2018, whereby
the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed
by the appellants and confirmed the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench
Delhi1 dated 17.04.2018 whereby it dismissed
the original application of the appellants seeking
regularization of their services.

3. The appellants before this Court, who were

applicants before the Tribunal originally
numbered five. However, the fourth applicant
before the Tribunal has not approached this
Court. Therefore, these appeals are instituted by
Applicant Nos.1, 2, 3, and 5 only. The sole
Appellant in SLP(C) No. 5580/2024 was
applicant no. 2 before the Tribunal whereas the
Appellant no. 1, 2 and 3 in SLP(C) No. 11086/
2024 were Applicant Nos. 1, 3 and 5 respectively
before the Tribunal. For ease of reference and to
maintain consistency, they shall continue to be
referred to by their original applicant numbers as
before the Tribunal.

1
Hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 2 of 29

4. The appellants before this Court, being Applicant
Nos.1, 2, 3, and 5 before the Tribunal, were
originally engaged by the Central Water
Commission2 on part-time, ad-hoc terms.
Applicant No.1 was appointed as a Safaiwali in
1993, Applicant No.2 as a Safaiwali in 1998, and
Applicant No.3 as a Safaiwali in 1999. All three
were primarily responsible for cleaning and
maintaining the office premises under the CWC.
Applicant No.5, appointed in 2004 as a Khallasi
(also discharging duties akin to a Mali/Khallasi),
was entrusted with tasks such as gardening,
dusting, and other ancillary maintenance work.
Throughout their engagement, these individuals
performed essential housekeeping and support
functions at CWC establishments, including its
offices at Faridabad, ensuring daily upkeep and
contributing to the smooth functioning of the
Commission’s administrative operations.

5. Initially, the appellants sought regularization of

their services by filing Original Application
No.2211/2015 before the Tribunal. They

2
In short, “CWC”

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 3 of 29

 contended that over the years, their roles and
responsibilities had evolved beyond the nominal
labels of “part-time” or “contractual” and that
they were performing ongoing and core functions
integral to the CWC’s operations. They relied on
applicable government instructions and the
principle that long-serving employees, engaged
against work of a perennial nature, deserve fair
consideration for regularization, provided their
appointments were not illegal or clandestine. The
Tribunal, by its order dated 17.04.2018,
dismissed the appellants’ plea. It concluded that
the appellants were not engaged on what it
considered “regular vacancies,” that they had not
completed what it termed as sufficient “full-time”
service (such as meeting a 240-days per year
criterion), and that their case did not attract the
principles enabling regularization. Within ten
days after the dismissal of the original
application, on 17.04.2018, the services of all
these individuals were abruptly terminated on
27.10.2018 by the respondent authorities
without issuance of any show-cause notice.

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 4 of 29

6. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision and
subsequent termination, the appellants
approached the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 6822
of 2018 praying for the following reliefs:

“a) Setting aside and quashing the impugned order

dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
in O.A. No. 2211/2015 titled as Smt. Anita & Ors.
Versus Union of India & Ors., and

b) Directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners

to their posts held by them prior to their illegal
termination on 27.04.2018 and further to regularize
the services of all the petitioners in their respective
posts, from the date of their initial appointments with
all the consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.

c) Issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

writ, direction, or order, as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case, in favor of the petitioners and against the
respondents.”

7. They urged the High Court to recognize their long

and continuous service, the nature of their work,
and the lack of any backdoor or illegal entry.
They highlighted that they had functioned
without any break, performed tasks equivalent to
regular employees, and had been assigned duties
essential to the regular upkeep, cleanliness, and
maintenance of the respondent’s offices. The

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 5 of 29

 High Court, after examining the Tribunal’s
decision and the submissions advanced,
concluded that the petitioners before it were
part-time workers who had not been appointed
against sanctioned posts, nor had they
performed a sufficient duration of full-time
service to satisfy the criteria for regularization. It
relied on the principle laid down in Secretary,
State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi3 holding that
the petitioners could not claim a vested right to
be absorbed or regularized without fulfilling the
requisite conditions. The High Court further
observed that the petitioners did not possess the
minimum educational qualifications ordinarily
required for regular appointments, and
additionally noted that the employer had
subsequently outsourced the relevant
housekeeping and maintenance activities.
Concluding that there was no legal basis to grant
the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the
writ petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the

3
(2006) 4 SCC 1

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 6 of 29

 appellants have approached this Court by way of
these appeals.

8. On behalf of the appellants, the following

arguments have been advanced before us:

(i). Continuous and Substantive

Engagement: The appellants emphasize
their long, uninterrupted service spanning
well over a decade—and in some
instances, exceeding two decades. They
argue that their duties were neither
sporadic nor project-based but permanent
and integral to the daily functioning of the
respondent’s offices.
(ii). Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities—
such as cleaning, dusting, gardening, and
other maintenance tasks—were not casual
or peripheral. Instead, they were central to
ensuring a clean, orderly, and functional
work environment, effectively aligning with
roles typically associated with regular
posts.
(iii). Absence of Performance Issues:
Throughout their tenure, the appellants

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 7 of 29

 were never issued any warning or adverse
remarks. They highlight that their work
was consistently satisfactory, and there
was no indication from the respondents
that their performance was not
satisfactory or required improvement.
(iv). Compliance with ‘Uma Devi’ Guidelines:
The appellants assert that their
appointments were not “illegal” but at
most “irregular.” Drawing on the principles
laid down in Secretary, State of
Karnataka vs. Uma Devi4, they submit
that long-serving employees in irregular
appointments—who fulfil essential,
sanctioned functions—are entitled to
consideration for regularization.
(v). Discrimination in Regularization: The
appellants point out that individuals with
fewer years of service or similar
engagements have been regularized. They
contend that denying them the same
benefit, despite their longer service and

4
(2006) 4 SCC 1

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 8 of 29

 crucial role, constitutes arbitrary and
discriminatory treatment.
(vi). Irrelevance of Educational
Qualifications: The appellants reject the
respondents’ reliance on formal
educational requirements, noting that
such criteria were never enforced earlier
and that the nature of their work does not
inherently demand formal schooling. They
argue that retrospectively imposing such
qualifications is unjustified given their
proven capability over many years.
(vii). Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the
appellants submit that the High Court
erred by focusing too rigidly on their initial
terms of engagement and ignoring the
substantive reality of their long, integral
service. They maintain that fairness,
equity, and established judicial principles
call for their regularization rather than
abrupt termination

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 9 of 29

9. On the other hand, the following primary
arguments have been advanced before us on
behalf of the Respondents:

(i). Nature of Engagement: The respondents

maintain that the appellants were engaged
purely on a part-time, contractual basis,
limited to a few hours a day, and that their
work was never intended to be permanent
or full-time.
(ii). Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They
assert that the appellants were not
appointed against any sanctioned posts.
According to the respondents, without
sanctioned vacancies, there can be no
question of regularization or absorption
into the permanent workforce.
(iii). Non-Compliance with ‘Uma Devi’
Criteria: Relying heavily on Secretary,
State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra),
the respondents argue that the appellants
do not meet the conditions necessary for
regularization. They emphasize that
merely serving a long period on a part-time

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 10 of 29

 or ad-hoc basis does not create a right to
be regularized.
(iv). Educational Qualifications: The
respondents contend that even if the
appellants were to be considered for
regular appointments, they do not possess
the minimum educational qualifications
mandated for regular recruitment. This, in
their view, disqualifies the appellants from
being absorbed into regular service.
(v). Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy
Decision: The respondents point out that
they have chosen to outsource the relevant
housekeeping and maintenance work to a
private agency. This, they argue, is a
legitimate administrative policy decision
aimed at improving efficiency and cannot
be interfered with by the courts.
(vi). No Fundamental Right to
Regularization: Finally, the respondents
underscore that no employee, merely by
virtue of long-standing temporary or part-
time engagement, acquires a vested right
to be regularized. They maintain that the

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 11 of 29

 appellants’ claims are devoid of any legal
entitlement and that the High Court was
correct in dismissing their petition.

10. Having given careful consideration to the

submissions advanced and the material on
record, we find that the appellants’ long and
uninterrupted service, for periods extending well
beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside
merely by labelling their initial appointments as
part-time or contractual. The essence of their
employment must be considered in the light of
their sustained contribution, the integral nature
of their work, and the fact that no evidence
suggests their entry was through any illegal or
surreptitious route.

11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were

engaged in performing essential duties that were
indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of
the offices of the Central Water Commission
(CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis,
were responsible for maintaining hygiene,
cleanliness, and a conducive working
environment within the office premises. Their

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 12 of 29

 duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning
of floors, workstations, and common areas—a set
of responsibilities that directly contributed to the
basic operational functionality of the CWC.
Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with
additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was
entrusted with critical maintenance tasks,
including gardening, upkeep of outdoor
premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings.

12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the

appellants performed these essential tasks on a
daily and continuous basis over extensive
periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two
decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or
temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent,
regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically
associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the
respondents did not engage any other personnel
for these tasks during the appellants’ tenure,
underscoring the indispensable nature of their
work.

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 13 of 29

13. The claim by the respondents that these were not
regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the
work performed by the appellants was perennial
and fundamental to the functioning of the offices.
The recurring nature of these duties necessitates
their classification as regular posts, irrespective
of how their initial engagements were labelled. It
is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing
of these same tasks to private agencies after the
appellants’ termination demonstrates the
inherent need for these services. This act of
outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of
workers with another, further underscores that
the work in question was neither temporary nor
occasional.

14. The abrupt termination of the appellants’

services, following dismissal of their Original
Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary
and devoid of any justification. The termination
letters, issued without prior notice or
explanation, violated fundamental principles of
natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that
even contractual employees are entitled to a fair

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 14 of 29

 hearing before any adverse action is taken
against them, particularly when their service
records are unblemished. In this case, the
appellants were given no opportunity to be heard,
nor were they provided any reasons for their
dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of
dedicated service.

15. Furthermore, the respondents’ conduct in

issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks
during the pendency of judicial proceedings,
despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing
maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona
fide intentions. Such actions not only
contravened judicial directives but also
underscored the respondents’ unwillingness to
acknowledge the appellants’ rightful claims to
regularization.

16. The appellants’ consistent performance over

their long tenures further solidifies their claim for
regularization. At no point during their
engagement did the respondents raise any issues
regarding their competence or performance. On

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 15 of 29

 the contrary, their services were extended
repeatedly over the years, and their
remuneration, though minimal, was
incrementally increased which was an implicit
acknowledgment of their satisfactory
performance. The respondents’ belated plea of
alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an
afterthought and lacks credibility.

17. As for the argument relating to educational

qualifications, we find it untenable in the present
context. The nature of duties the appellants
performed—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and
gardening—does not inherently mandate formal
educational prerequisites. It would be unjust to
rely on educational criteria that were never
central to their engagement or the performance
of their duties for decades. Moreover, the
respondents themselves have, by their conduct,
shown that such criteria were not strictly
enforced in other cases of regularization. The
appellants’ long-standing satisfactory
performance itself attests to their capability to
discharge these functions, making rigid

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 16 of 29

 insistence on formal educational requirements
an unreasonable hurdle.

18. The appellants have also established that

individuals with lesser tenure or comparable
roles were regularized by the respondents. The
counsel for the appellants had submitted a
seniority list for employees working as the Multi-
Tasking Staff published by the Respondent
Department on 04.03.2024 wherein the following
employees were a part of the staff without the
required educational qualification:

S.No. Name Educational Date of Temporary Category

Qualification Continuous or
CWC Permanent
Service posts
1. Krishna Illiterate 26.07.1988 Permanent SC
s/o Lt.
Khajan
Singh
2. Naresh Illiterate 29.10.1991 Permanent Gen
Devi w/o
Ld.
Surendra
Kumar
3. Shiv Illiterate 08.09.1994 Permanent SC
Kumar
s/o Lt.
Pratap
Singh
4. Radhe Illiterate 30.05.2012 Permanent OBC
Shyam
s/o Lt.
Sadhu

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 17 of 29

 Ram
Maurya
5. Raju s/o Illiterate 12.07.1994 Permanent SC
Shri
Banshi
Lal
6. Shahjad Illiterate 01.07.2010 Permanent Gen
Ali s/o
Naushad
Ali
7. Punam Illiterate 21.09.2015 Permanent SC
w/o Lt.
Raj
Kumar
8. Nirmala Illiterate 02.02.2022 Temporary SC
w/o Lt.
Raju

A bare perusal of the aforementioned list shows

the preferential treatment accorded to these
individuals, despite their shorter service
durations and no educational qualification. This
exemplifies discriminatory behaviour and lack of
uniformity in the respondent department’s
approach. Such disparity violates the principles
of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and cannot be sustained in
law.

19. It is evident from the foregoing that the

appellants’ roles were not only essential but also
indistinguishable from those of regular

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 18 of 29

 employees. Their sustained contributions over
extended periods, coupled with absence of any
adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and
regularization of their services. Denial of this
benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination,
amounts to manifest injustice and must be
rectified.

20. It is well established that the decision in Uma

Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize
employees who have rendered long years of
service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions
of the State or its instrumentalities. The said
judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and
illegal appointments that circumvent
constitutional requirements. However, where
appointments were not illegal but possibly
“irregular,” and where employees had served
continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned
functions for a considerable period, the need for
a fair and humane resolution becomes
paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and
unblemished service performing tasks inherently
required on a regular basis can, over the time,

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 19 of 29

 transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary
into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In
a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar
and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, it was
held that held that procedural formalities cannot
be used to deny regularization of service to an
employee whose appointment was termed
"temporary" but has performed the same duties
as performed by the regular employee over a
considerable period in the capacity of the regular
employee. The relevant paras of this judgement
have been reproduced below:
“6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely
with the facts at hand, given the specific
circumstances under which the appellants were
employed and have continued their service. The
reliance on procedural formalities at the outset
cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive
rights that have accrued over a considerable
period through continuous service. Their
promotion was based on a specific notification for
vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by
a selection process involving written tests and
interviews, which distinguishes their case from
the appointments through back door entry as
discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra)
also distinguished between “irregular” and
“illegal” appointments underscoring the
importance of considering certain appointments

5
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 20 of 29

 even if were not made strictly in accordance with
the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be
said to have been made illegally if they had
followed the procedures of regular appointments
such as conduct of written examinations or
interviews as in the present case…”

21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the

initial label of the appellants’ engagements and
the outsourcing decision taken after their
dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface
labels and consider the realities of employment:
continuous, long-term service, indispensable
duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities
in their appointments. In that light, refusing
regularization simply because their original
terms did not explicitly state so, or because an
outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced,
would be contrary to principles of fairness and
equity.

22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment

contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a
broader systemic issue that adversely affects
workers' rights and job security. In the private
sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an
increase in precarious employment

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 21 of 29

 arrangements, often characterized by lack of
benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for exploiting
workers and undermining labour standards.
Government institutions, entrusted with
upholding the principles of fairness and justice,
bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When public
sector entities engage in misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental
trends observed in the gig economy but also sets
a concerning precedent that can erode public
trust in governmental operations.

23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of

which India is a founding member, has
consistently advocated for employment stability
and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's
Multinational Enterprises Declaration6
encourages companies to provide stable
employment and to observe obligations
concerning employment stability and social

6
International Labour Organization- Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning
Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy.

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 22 of 29

 security. It emphasizes that enterprises should
assume a leading role in promoting employment
security, particularly in contexts where job
discontinuation could exacerbate long-term
unemployment.

24. The landmark judgement of the United State in

the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7
serves as a pertinent example from the private
sector, illustrating the consequences of
misclassifying employees to circumvent
providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft
classified certain workers as independent
contractors, thereby denying them employee
benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit determined that these workers were, in
fact, common-law employees and were entitled to
the same benefits as regular employees. The
Court noted that large Corporations have
increasingly adopted the practice of hiring
temporary employees or independent contractors
as a means of avoiding payment of employee

7
97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 23 of 29

 benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This
judgment underscores the principle that the
nature of the work performed, rather than the
label assigned to the worker, should determine
employment status and the corresponding rights
and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in
rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring
that workers receive fair treatment.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary

employees, particularly in government
institutions, often face multifaceted forms of
exploitation. While the foundational purpose of
temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have
increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-
term obligations owed to employees. These
practices manifest in several ways:

• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:

Employees engaged for work that is
essential, recurring, and integral to the
functioning of an institution are often
labeled as "temporary" or "contractual,"

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 24 of 29

 even when their roles mirror those of
regular employees. Such misclassification
deprives workers of the dignity, security,
and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical
tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary
employees are frequently dismissed
without cause or notice, as seen in the
present case. This practice undermines the
principles of natural justice and subjects
workers to a state of constant insecurity,
regardless of the quality or duration of their
service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded
from opportunities for skill development,
promotions, or incremental pay raises.
They remain stagnant in their roles,
creating a systemic disparity between them
and their regular counterparts, despite
their contributions being equally
significant.

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 25 of 29

 • Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to
outsourcing roles performed by temporary
employees, effectively replacing one set of
exploited workers with another. This
practice not only perpetuates exploitation
but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to
bypass the obligation to offer regular
employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and paid
leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security
subjects them and their families to undue
hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)

sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries
and ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 26 of 29

 principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied
to deny legitimate claims of long-serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish
between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It
categorically held that employees in irregular
appointments, who were engaged in duly
sanctioned posts and had served continuously
for more than ten years, should be considered for
regularization as a one-time measure. However,
the laudable intent of the judgment is being
subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees,
even in cases where their appointments are not
illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural
formalities. Government departments often cite
the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that
no vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the
judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases
where regularization is appropriate. This
selective application distorts the judgment's
spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it
against employees who have rendered
indispensable services over decades.

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 27 of 29

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it
is imperative for government departments to lead
by example in providing fair and stable
employment. Engaging workers on a temporary
basis for extended periods, especially when their
roles are integral to the organization's
functioning, not only contravenes international
labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, government institutions can reduce
the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job
security, and uphold the principles of justice and
fairness that they are meant to embody. This
approach aligns with international standards
and sets a positive precedent for the private
sector to follow, thereby contributing to the
overall betterment of labour practices in the
country.

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the

appeals are allowed. The impugned orders
passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 28 of 29

 set aside and the original application is allowed
to the following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are
quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty
forthwith and their services regularised
forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be
entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages
for the period they have not worked for but
would be entitled to continuity of services for
the said period and the same would be
counted for their post-retiral benefits.

29. There shall be no order as to costs.

……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)

……………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 20, 2024

SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 29 of 29